Just got back from an advance preview screening of this (again), and... Believe the reviews coming out of the gate, this is not just the best X-Men film to date it's also the closest contender of the "best comic book adaption" title to date - right up there with The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Like the case was with Thor, i have never read any of the old X-Men comics so keep this in mind when reading the following.

Review: X-Men First ClassEverything that all previous X-Men films have gotten wrong (Script, Characters, Pacing) this gets right and while some parts do feel a bit rushed it keeps everything coherent thanks largely to an extremely solid script and strong acting. I was never bored, never found myself uninterested in the plot, and found myself both recoiling and unexpectedly laughing really **** hard at some parts. The CG effects are just breathtaking as well.

Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) were PERFECTLY cast as their respective characters, a fantastic feeling of comradeship develops as the two get to know each other, something that makes the ending all the more tragic. Raven Xavier/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) gives a good performance as do all of the team, but they do feel a bit overshadowed by the two main characters - They're not bad actors here... it's just McAvoy and Fassbender are so good they stand out so much amongst the cast.

The movie sets the tone of the story as being EXTREMELY dark right from the first scenes with the young Erik being held in a **** concentration camp, what happens there made me lean back in my seat almost and i am pretty sure i heard some in the audience whispering "No... oh god no..". This part of the film i felt borrowed a bit from the Star Trek reboot as it compares the early lives of Erik and Charles and the results of said upbringings. It's here where Fassbender's Erik really steals the show: The film goes from 1944 to 1964 where a 30 year old Erik, who now has a grasp of his mutant powers, has made it his life's goal to hunt down and exact revenge on the ****'s that wronged him. You see everything he does in all it's bloody glory.. I felt at this point the film really shakes the audience, almost saying "This is what you're in for, get ready". Charles Xavier has a much easier time throughout his story in comparison but that does not mean his story is any less interesting; his character is clearly conflicted and tragically arrogant despite having good intentions. Seeing his character finally realizing how completely wrong he is for once towards the end of the film and the price he pays for it is a very powerful scene.

The story has a surprising amount of humor in it despite it's overly dark and serious themes based in a Cold War setting (Vaughn really did his homework here). A fair amount of the comedy comes from Charles Xavier, forget the wheelchair bound sage from previous films, this character is one full of swagger and enough charm to woo any woman he wants (and he does). Erik has a handful of funny scenes as well which feels good and odd at the same time given his character's back story. There was a freakin' hilarious part that had EVERYONE in the screening laughing their asses off for a good minute, BIG SPOILER >>> BEST... CAMEO... EVER.... You'll know it when you see it...

The fights are intense, they make very good use of the CG effects and they don't use close up shots to an extreme like other films have done. Watching Azazel rip through a squadron of soldiers with close to no effort was a "Wow" moment for me. Nothing is done to be so insanely over the top it becomes laughable, which is incredible to say about an X-Men film. The pacing is spot on, never going too slow but never zooming along so fast it leaves half the audience in the dust but still the 2 hours and 15 minutes running time just flies by, left me a bit let down when it ended... i sort of wanted it to keep going.

I'm not sure if Vaughn intends to continue his own take on the X-Men universe, the ending is open to interupritation as far as i saw it, but suffice to say he's got the winning formula down just like J.J Abrams did with Star Trek and I'd be thrilled if he went and did Wolverine's story some justice if he goes there. See this film ASAP even if you don't think you'd like an X-Men film, you won't be let down.

Rating: 9.8/10.0

Edited, Jun 1st 2011 7:48pm by Tatham

____________________________

Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the Horror of the shade, And yet the menace of the years Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll. I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.

Believe the reviews coming out of the gate, this is not just the best X-Men film to date it's also the closest contender of the "best comic book adaption" title to date - right up there with The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Like the case was with Thor, i have never read any of the old X-Men comics so keep this in mind when reading the following.

I absolutely intend to watch this film, but the preceding is a bit strange. How can you say this is the best adaption ever if you're not even remotely familiar with the source material? At the risk of judging something on the basis of actually being familiar with the source material, my first concern with the quality of the adaption is the use of characters that didn't exist in the original story until decades later than the story is set.

That's not to say it's not a great story. I'm sure it is. But that makes it less an adaption as a "retelling". My impression from the very first previews of the film suggested that what they did was take some of the newer and less well known characters and write a story pretending that they'd really been there at the beginning and count on most of the audience (like you) not realizing this.

Quote:

I'm not sure if Vaughn intends to continue his own take on the X-Men universe, the ending is open to interupritation as far as i saw it, but suffice to say he's got the winning formula down just like J.J Abrams did with Star Trek and I'd be thrilled if he went and did Wolverine's story some justice if he goes there.

I personally thought the Star Trek reboot was horribly written with plot holes a mile wide. Didn't have a problem with the rewriting of the history at all. It was just so poorly done that I was cringing during the film. I hope to god it's not the same with this film. That said, as I pointed out earlier, I have a bit of an issue with the whole "insert new characters into older stories" bit. It would be kinda like if the Star Trek reboot had featured Pickard as Kirk's academy roommate. But again, I suspect they're counting on most of the audience not knowing who Havoc and Banshee are.

But it's not like this is the first time they've shuffled characters around for the films. As long as it's done well, I can deal with it.

this is not just the best X-Men film to date it's also the closest contender of the "best comic book adaption" title to date

I'll believe the first half, as the X-Men films haven't exactly been amazing motion pictures, but somehow I'm not holding my breath on the second half. Just the commercials alone make me doubt the film follows the established lore.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I checked the Wikipedia article for the cast list and Darwin is in there. He was part of Moira McTaggert's first attempt at a mutant team, not Xavier's. The random tossing in of character to fill in the plot annoys the **** out of me, I understand they used Havok to cover Cyclops's role but why did they us Mystique? She's supposed to be over 100 years old, **** during WWII she was partnered with Sabretooth.

While I understand why they do it, what bothers (a bit anyway) is how they take characters that have evolved significantly over time and use the current evolution of said character when writing a story that took place in the past. A classic example of this is the use of a young Emma Frost using her diamond-skin powers. Obviously, it's intended to identify the character to people who know her as she is now, but that's not how she was originally. I get it, but at the same time it would be nice for the writers to allow for the audience who is familiar with the character to also know that she didn't always have that power and actually appreciate that the writers recognized this too.

They're basically catering to the relatively small portion of comic book fans who will recognize the character but not know enough about his/her history to understand why said character is different in the film. But IMO that's just the wrong way to do it. Those fans, when they ask why a character they know isn't the same as in the comics today will be told that he/she had different powers back in the past. Simple answer and someone learns something. You do the reverse, and there's no good answer.

I'm sure some market study showed them they'd get better character recognition or action figure sales doing it the other way though, so whatever. I get it. It does bug me a bit though.

I'll go check it out this weekend. Unlike the nerds in this thread I don't have a clue about the original material. I'm just in it for a couple hours of amusement, which is all this movie is likely to provide.

I checked the Wikipedia article for the cast list and Darwin is in there. He was part of Moira McTaggert's first attempt at a mutant team, not Xavier's. The random tossing in of character to fill in the plot annoys the **** out of me, I understand they used Havok to cover Cyclops's role but why did they us Mystique? She's supposed to be over 100 years old, **** during WWII she was partnered with Sabretooth.

Edited, Jun 1st 2011 8:24pm by Shaowstrike

Actually, not WWII but the Cold war afterwards. It's then that she had their loving son who later tried to kill them all. Granted, old news and hardly spoiler worthy I suppose

As for Darwin, sort of ironic as it's Xavier that gets Moira's first team all killed. Well, I say almost yet two survived I suppose, although I've stopped reading the series when Xavier went to space to stop Scott's second brother.

I'm not holding my breath for this movie, although it just cannot be worse than X-Men III, which was the worst comic book adaptation ever, even worse than the David Hasselhof Shield movie. Heck, the very old Hulk movies were truly superior to that one.

It sounds more like an Ultimate X-Men version, a twist on the canon tales of the X-Men. Which is a shame, because in the very long and repetitive history of the X-Men, there are a heck of a lot of good stories to be told and televised. Perhaps one day they'll get some done.

It wasn't really that bad of a movie. I wouldn't say it was the greatest thing ever, but it certain was enjoyable. It was very obvious that the movie wasn't focused so much on being an action packed block buster, but as a precursor for a series of movies. I seriously doubt they'll wait for fan reviews and are probably already on the first or second phase of movie creating for the sequel. It was a little hamfisted when they were doing the introductions, but believable. I'm going to say, considering the source material, the action wasn't over the top like that last atrocity that was a movie based on X-Men.

Both James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender were exceptional in their roles, and I admit Kevin Bacon was really good as well. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say the entire cast acted really well in the movie. I especially liked how they didn't make Xavier just "right," but hit the fact he was quite arrogant in his thinking, just as much as Erik was in his.

I did enjoy the display of powers. It was quite well done. Especially Alex Summers' power set. Not because it was particularly accurate, but it was a fairly unique interpretation. I mean, he does have rings of plasma like in the movie, but not the Hula Hoops of Death™ as I'm calling it. It really looked like he was hula hooping before his costume. On the other hand, I missed it, but I think Emma used her telepathy while in diamond form, and that's wrong.

My favorite part of the movie was (and it really can't be considered a spoiler)

The cameo was ... meh. I've never liked him in the comics, and the previous movies I didn't like him either. I will say that when Cerebro was activated, I did giggle a bit when I noticed Ororo. I'm sure there were others, but it went by so fast and I was still fanboying over that. Really one of the better parts of the movie.

Overall, I'm going to say the movie, minus any comic book knowledge, was a solid project and worth your money to see. I wouldn't say it really gives The Dark Knight a run for it's money like the commercials say, but it is a good movie.

Which, leads me to the comic book knowledge review ... Spoilers within as well. If you don't want to read it, I'll sum it up as: My initial reactions were correct.

Comic Nerd Review:

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.

DARWIN DIES?! HOW THE FUCK DOES THE ONE MUTANT, WHO'S POWER SET REVOLVES AROUND SURVIVING ANYTHING "DIE?!"

No, seriously. This is a character who looks a DEATH GOD. A DEATH GOD. A GOD OF DEATH. Looks her in the eye and scares her away. The Death God, mind you, who can kill people with a thought. And Darwin scares her away by evolving into a Death God.

He goes into space outside of a rocket and just hangs out. He gets shot with lasers and just continues to walk around. You cannot kill him, that's the whole point of his power set! ****, the scene before he dies when going after Angel it looks like he turns on his shell well before Havok's power hits him. Not moments before, a good two or three seconds. Again, his power is completely reactionary. He has no control of it. Might as well call it racist while we're at it. The one black dude, killed almost immediately after sticking his head in a fish bowl. Fuck you.

Moira MacTaggert, American CIA? Yeah, another FUCK YOU. She's so Scottish that its hard to ******* read her accent! Its such a simple characteristic that didn't need to be eliminated! Just give her an over the top Scottish brogue! ****, on top of that Sean Cassedy wasn't exactly very Irish "top a de mornin'" either. These aren't difficult things to implement.

Then Hank McCoy. Dear god what the **** did they do to you? A shy geeky introvert? This is a guy that, even pre-blueification had a new girlfriend every month. He would be out on the town having the time of his life. I'll accept that he used Mystique's blood for his potion to make him "more normal," but its like they didn't read a single book.

Then there's Sebastian Shaw. Wow. I can't think of a single right thing done with him. His power set isn't a controlled one (much like Darwin) so what happened at the end could not have happened. Maybe I just forgot, but I'm fairly sure he couldn't project the kinetic energy he stored up. It just enhanced all his physical attributes. Speed, strength, durability, etc etc.

I've used up all my righteous comic book nerdrage to even go into the other characters. Needless to say, they were considerably off.

Edited, Jun 4th 2011 2:13am by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

As someone who was unaware of the source material, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I'd give it 8/10. Acting was good for most of the main characters, but some of the supporting characters were kinda eh. Mystique was hit or miss as well imo.

Quote:

On the other hand, I missed it, but I think Emma used her telepathy while in diamond form, and that's wrong.

Then there's Sebastian Shaw. Wow. I can't think of a single right thing done with him. His power set isn't a controlled one (much like Darwin) so what happened at the end could not have happened. Maybe I just forgot, but I'm fairly sure he couldn't project the kinetic energy he stored up. It just enhanced all his physical attributes. Speed, strength, durability, etc etc.

Wait, so they merged Shaw with Bishop, and they still used skinny-*** Kevin Bacon for the role? Bastards!

Then there's Sebastian Shaw. Wow. I can't think of a single right thing done with him. His power set isn't a controlled one (much like Darwin) so what happened at the end could not have happened. Maybe I just forgot, but I'm fairly sure he couldn't project the kinetic energy he stored up. It just enhanced all his physical attributes. Speed, strength, durability, etc etc.

Wait, so they merged Shaw with Bishop, and they still used skinny-*** Kevin Bacon for the role? Bastards!

And he stole Mr. Sinister's shtick.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

Then there's Sebastian Shaw. Wow. I can't think of a single right thing done with him. His power set isn't a controlled one (much like Darwin) so what happened at the end could not have happened. Maybe I just forgot, but I'm fairly sure he couldn't project the kinetic energy he stored up. It just enhanced all his physical attributes. Speed, strength, durability, etc etc.

Wait, so they merged Shaw with Bishop, and they still used skinny-*** Kevin Bacon for the role? Bastards!

Everything that all previous X-Men films have gotten wrong (Script, Characters, Pacing) this gets right

I didn't find the "original" X-Men movies that bad, to be honest. Sure, they were a bit cheesy, but nowhere near the disastrous failure a lot of people apparently see them as.

Granted, I haven't read many X-Men comics in my life, either, so I can't comment on whether or not Singer's movies were true to the lore or not, but considering the amount of twists the X-Men story has taken in the comics, does it really matter?

Looking forward to watching First Class. Not expecting more than Thor, which was a good movie, by the way, but not expecting less either.

All in all, I'm pretty happy I was born in time for these recent movie adaptations of comics. Special effects, action and a twist of humor/drama is alright in my book.

____________________________

Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.

Easily best X-men movie of the 3 I've seen, which speaks more of how awful the others were.

I found lolgaxe's review to be fairly entertaining. It seemed to me like he's complaining his hooker isn't a virgin. Marvel (and DC) "stories" are continuously retconned whenever it becomes the slightest bit inconvenient for them while selling out.

More like buying a hooker and finding she is a virgin. I didn't pay who knows how much for someone that doesn't know what she's doing. I'll still enjoy the experience, but not nearly as much as with someone that knew what was going on, and I'll probably feel even dirtier afterwards for enjoying said experience.

This wasn't a retcon; Retcons tend to leave some resemblance of canon in place. This is full on alternative dimension.

But yes, best of the X-Movies. In fact, arguably first of the X-Movies, considering the other three were more Wolverine Guest Starring some X-Men

Edited, Jun 13th 2011 8:23pm by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

This wasn't a retcon; Retcons tend to leave some resemblance of canon in place. This is full on alternative dimension.]

I'm pretty sure the comics have done worse.

I'm pretty sure Beast was made to be the shy introvert to give the movie a love/b subplot with Mystique, because otherwise they'd have less of a movie if it was just a X-Magneto ********* As for the change of CIA girl's background to being American, well Americans are xenophobic (did you see how fast they killed the black guy?) Also this change might have been more distressing if her character matter. She basically just existed so that the X-men had a tie in to the CIA, and didn't matter as a character at all.

Yeah, when he died my first thought was "Wow, they killed the token black guy AGAIN!?" And even though I don't know much about the comics (although I loved the cartoon growing up in the 90's) I thought it was weird that he could be killed after they explained his powers.

Also, the cameo you spoke of wasn't the only one. Not sure if you guys noticed, but during the scene where Mystique tries to seduce Erik, and he makes the comment about her being too young, she switches form and there was Rebecca Romijn! It was just a split second, so I'm not surprised if some people didn't notice.

After I saw the movie, I came home and talked with my bf J, and we looked at the Wiki page for X-men and I thought it was dumb that they created entirely new mutants for Shaw's crew when they could have easily used ones that were already in the series. Especially when they gave one of them Storm's powers. WTF was up with that?

After I saw the movie, I came home and talked with my bf J, and we looked at the Wiki page for X-men and I thought it was dumb that they created entirely new mutants for Shaw's crew when they could have easily used ones that were already in the series.

They weren't made for the movie, they're both throwaway obscure characters that were altered for the movie, but they did exist. Riptide was part of the ReaversMauraders that killed most of the Morlocks in the mid-80s, and Azazel was from the biblical times and fathered Nightcrawler (and like a million other Nightcrawler-like mutants ...) in the early 2000s.

Comic Nerd Powers ... ACTIVATE!

Edited, Jun 19th 2011 1:54pm by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

Do you know where he might have gotten that idea if Azazel was actually his father?

Comic book plot.

Azazel is really, really old. In the Biblical times a bunch of angels banished him to another dimension. Azazel figured out how to come back to the regular dimension for brief periods of time, and each time he did he'd sire a child. Eventually, Nightcrawler met another person who had similar abilities, like to teleport and a bamf of hellfire and brimstone. Then it turns out that there are thousands of brothers and sisters who can teleport like that, and the reason they can do that is so Azazel can come back to the regular universe on a more permanent basis and conquer the world. A little before the nefarious plot is discovered, we learn that Mystique and Azazel had a thing together, hence Nightcrawler's birth.

Like I said, comic book plot.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.